• 


OS. 


United    States    F  o  o  d    A  d  m  i  n 


A 

0 
0 
1 

2 
9 
7  i 

5  ! 

7  ! 
4  i 


JUKI  3  1938 


Garbage  Utilizatio 

with  particular  reference 


to 


utilization  by  feeding 


Washington,  D.  C. 

February, 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1918 


The  purpose  of  the  Garbage  Utilization  Division  of  the  Food 
Administration  is  to  urge  the  utilization  of  such  waste-food  products 
as  are  unsuited  for  human  consumption. 

If  this  can  be  accomplished,  there  will  result  an  increased  meat 
supply,  an  increased  production  of  inedible  fats,  an  increased  pro- 
duction of  fertilizing  elements,  and  a  decrease  in  the  cost  of  garbage 
disposal. 


This  bulletin  has  been  largely  prepared  from  data  obtained  from 
various  publications  and  from  correspondence  and  conference  with 
men  experienced  in  garbage  disposal. 

The  portion  relating  to  diseases  of  garbage-fed  hogs  has  been 
reviewed  by  Dr.  Edw.  A.  Cahill,  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of 
Animal  Industry,  and  Dr.  O.  B.  Hess,  of  the  United  States  Bureau 
of  Animal  Industry.  That  portion  relating  to  the  municipal  hog 
farm  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  has  been  reviewed  by  Mr.  Thomas  Home, 
superintendent  of  Worcester  Home  Farm,  and  Prof.  Frederic 
Bonnet,  jr.,  of  Worcester  Polytechnic  Institute. 

t 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 

WITH    PARTICULAR   REFERENCE   TO   UTILIZATION   BY 

FEEDING. 


The  American  garbage  pail,  with  its  twenty-odd  billion  pounds  of 
garbage  per  year,  can  well  be  considered  one  of  our  expensive  lux- 
uries, and  if  through  high  prices,  by  the  efforts  of  the  Food  Adminis- 
tration or  otherwise,  our  per  capita  waste  can  be  reduced  by  even  a 
small  per  cent,  no  small  additional  supply  of  foodstuffs  will  be 
available. 

Undoubtedly  a  large  amount  of  garbage  must  exist  even  when 
the  strictest  economy  is  exercised.  The  garbage  pail  can  not  be  en- 
tirely eliminated,  but  it  can  be  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  food  saving. 
"  Put  less  in  the  garbage  pail  and  take  more  out."  If  all  the  garbage 
now  being  destroyed  in  cities  of  from  10,000  to  100,000  population 
were  disposed  of  by  feeding,  approximately  30,000,000  pounds  of 
pork,  valued  at  about  $5,000,000,  would  be  available,  assuming  only 
50  per  cent  efficiency.  If  we  add  to  this  the  value  of  grease  and 
tankage  destroyed  in  cities  of  over  100,000  population,  we  have  over 
$11,000,000  per  annum  of  potential  food  values  being  destroyed. 

Is  your  community  helping  to  make  up  this  appalling  total  ?  Are 
you  doing  anything  to  cut  it  down?  If  not,  why  not?  Because  of 
indifference  on  the  part  of  your  municipal  officials?  Because  of 
ignorance  as  to  the  value  being  destroyed?  Or  because  of  objections 
on  the  part  of  sanitary  officials  ?  If  garbage  has  the  potential  values 
indicated  it  is  obviously  the  duty  of  every  municipal  official  to  inves- 
tigate the  present  method  of  disposal  in  his  city.  We  doubt  greatly 
whether  the  nonutilization  of  garbage  can  be  justified  in  a  majority 
of  cases.  It  certainly  can  not  be  justified  on  sanitary  grounds  alone, 
and  its  destruction  is  just  as  wrong  as  the  wastage  of  edible  food- 
stuffs. 

MEANING  OF  THE  TERM   "GARBAGE." 

The  term  "  garbage "  is  a  general  expression  for  a  purely  local 
product.  It  does  not  designate  any  definite  material  or  combina- 
tion of  materials.  Its  composition  and  even  its  general  meaning 
vary  in  different  localities.  As  used  herein  the  term  "garbage" 
will  mean  all  refuse  accumulations  of  animal  or  vegetable  matter 
which  has  been  intended  for  use  as  food  for  man.  It  will  not  in- 
clude any  material  in  the  nature  of  ashes,  rubbish  or  refuse,  night 
soil,  dead  animals,  street  sweepings,  manure,  or  similar  materials. 

DIFFICULTY  WITH  DISPOSAL  METHODS. 

The  garbage  produced  by  a  given  city  is  determined  almost  en- 
lirely  by  conditions  in  that  city;  with  southern  cities  a  larger 
amount  of  vegetable  matter  will  be  found  than  in  northern  cities, 

3 


4  CABBAGE   UTILIZATION. 

where  the  season  for  fresh  vegetables  and  fruit  is  not  so  long;  the 
peculiar  diet  of  any  large  number  of  a  foreign  population  has  an 
important  bearing  on  the  contents  of  the  garbage  cans;  cities  on  the 
seaboard  show  a  large  amount  of  refuse  from  sea  food,  etc. 

In  view  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  what  constitutes  garbage,  no  set 
rules  can  be  formulated  for  its  disposal.  The  fact  that  some  one 
city  is  successful  with  a  certain  method  of  disposal  is  no  criterion 
that  another  city  can  make  an  equal  success  of  a  similar  method. 

No  doubt  a  large  part  of  the  continual  agitation  on  the  part  of  a 
majority  of  our  municipalities  for  a  change  in  their  methods  of 
garbage  disposal  is  due  to  a  lack  of  study  of  local  conditions. 
Records  received  from  the  Food  Administration  indicate  that  out 
of  596  cities  of  over  10,000  population,  136,  or  over  22  per  cent,  are 
contemplating  changes  in  their  method  of  disposal. 

This  point  is  emphasized  as  it  must  be  clearly  understood  that  in 
presenting  this  bulletin  the  Food  Administration  is  not  attempting 
to  establish  set  formulas  to  be  followed  by  every  city  without  excep- 
tion. General  principles  that  must  be  followed  to  assure  successful 
utilization  can  be  set  forth,  but  whether  the  factors  governing  suc- 
cess are  present  in  a  particular  locality  can  only  be  determined  after 
a  careful  study  of  the  conditions  in  that  locality. 

METHODS  OF  DISPOSAL. 

The  principal  methods  of  garbage  disposal  at  the  present  time 
are: 

(1)  Incineration. 

(2)  Reduction. 

(3)  Feeding. 

Incineration  is  the  method  whereby  the  garbage  and  other  mate- 
rials are  destroyed  by  fire  in  especially  designed  furnaces,  known  as 
crematories,  incinerators,  or  destructors. 

Reduction  is  the  process  whereby  the  garbage  is  treated  in  vari- 
ous ways  to  the  end  that  the  grease  it  contains  is  recovered  and  the 
fertilizing  elements  are  made  available  as  a  fertilizer  tankage. 

Feeding  is  the  method  whereby  the  garbage  is  converted  into 
food  material.  This  usually  refers  to  pork,  although  garbage  is  being 
successfully  fed  to  chickens,  sheep,  and  cattle. 

There  are  in  existence  other  methods  of  garbage  disposal,  but 
these  can  be  considered  as  only  temporary;  for  example,  in  certain 
places  garbage  is  successfully  disposed  of  in  sanitary  fills,  or  dumps, 
in  which  case  the  garbage  when  deposited  is  immediately  covered 
with  a  layer  of  earth  or  other  absorbent  material.  Some  cities  are 
having  good  success  with  this  method;  but  for  this  purpose  con- 
siderable land  must  be  available  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  time 
before  they  will  have  to  give  up  this  method  for  one  of  the  three  out- 
lined above.  This  is  also  true  of  the  numerous  other  ways  in  which 
garbage  is  being  disposed  of — burial,  dumping  at  sea,  in  large  bodies 
of  water,  on  dumps,  etc. 

AMOUNT  OF  GARBAGE  PRODUCED. 

Undoubtedly  a  big  factor  in  the  problem  of  garbage  disposal  is 
the  fact  that  such  comparatively  small  quantities  accumulate  each 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION.  5 

day  in  every  household,  and  that  its  nature  requires  removal  at  fre- 
quent intervals.  From  one-half  to  three-fourths  of  a  pound  daily, 
or  approximately  200  pounds  per  annum,  is  the  per  capita  produc- 
tion in  the  United  States.  Obviously  the  frequent  removal  of  from 
1  to  10  pounds  of  garbage  from  each  residence  is  a  decidedly  more 
expensive  operation  than  would  be  the  collection  of  the  same  annual 
aggregates  in  cartload  lots. 

GARBAGE    COLLECTIONS. 

In  making  garbage  collections  two  general  systems  are  employed, 
separate  collections  and  combined  collections.  With  separate  col- 
lections one  set  of  vehicles  remove  only  the  garbage,  another  set  the 
ashes,  and  a  third  the  rubbish.  With  combined  collections  the  garb- 
age, ashes,  and  rubbish  are  all  placed  in  the  same  receptacle  and  re- 
moved by  a  single  set  of  collection  vehicles. 

Much  has  been  written  on  the  advantages  of  combined  collections 
over  separate  collections,  and  vice  versa.  All  sorts  of  sanitary  and 
economic  claims  have  been  made  for  each  system.  In  a  general  way 
separate  collections  permit-  the  utilization  of  the  salable  portion  of 
the  rubbish,  the  removal  of  the  unconsumed  fuel  from  the  ashes,  and 
the  utilization  of  the  garbage.  Consequently  combined  collections 
are  generally  used  where  the  material  is  to  be  incinerated,  although 
in  some  cases  separate  collections  are  made  even  when  incineration  is 
employed. 

The  principal  advantages  claimed  for  the  combined  method  of 
collections  are  that  this  S3rstem  is  more  convenient  to  the  householder, 
that  liquids  in  the  garbage  are  absorbed  by  the  other  materials,  that 
the  fly  nuisance  and  odors  are  thereby  lessened,  that  less  frequent 
collections  of  garbage  need  be  made,  and  that  the  cost  of  collection  is 
less.  All  are  advantages  to  a  certain  extent.  Combined  collec- 
tions are  undoubtedly  more  convenient  to  the  householder  and  are 
less  trouble  to  the  city  officials,  but  in  most  cases  mean  more  taxes  to 
the  public.  Whether  the  liquids  of  the  garbage  are  absorbed  by 
other  materials  and  the  odors,  etc.,  are  diminished  thereby,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  relative  quantities  of  the  respective  ingredients  in  the 
receptacle.  With  a  properly  enforced  regulation  relative  to  water- 
tight covered  cans,  there  should  be  no  odor  or  fly  nuisance  with 
separate  collections. 

It  is  also  practical  that  the  garbage  need  not  be  collected  as  fre- 
quently with  combined  collections  as  with  separate  collections,  but 
the  converse  is  also  true,  that  with  the  combined  collections  the 
ashes  and  rubbish  must  be  collected  more  frequently,  due  to  their 
intermixture  with  garbage. 

SEPARATE    V.     COMBINED    COLLECTIONS. 

Comparative  costs  of  combined  and  separate  collections  at  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.,  based  on  extensive  investigation  during  1915  indicate 
that  combined  collections  would  cost  about  7  cents  per  capita  per 
annum  less  than  separate  collections.  The  value  of  the  by-products 
recovered  by  utilization  after  separate  collections  would  absorb  this 
7  cents  and  leave  a  comfortable  balance.  The  total  cost  of  combined 
collection  with  incineration  was  estimated  at  68  cents  per  capita  per 


6  GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 

annum.     With  separate  collections  and   utilization   the   per   capita 
figure  was  33.4  cents  per  annum. 

INCINERATION. 

Out  of  620  cities  having  thus  far  reported  their  method  of  dis- 
posal, 102,  or  about  16  per  cent,  are  destroying  their  garbage  by 
burning  in  some  form  of  incinerator.  These  102  cities  include  19  of 
the  66  cities  reported  by  the  Census  Bureau  as  having  over  100,000 
population  in  1916. 

These  cities  are  destroying  about  600,000  tons  of  garbage  per  an- 
num, as  well  as  enormous  quantities  of  paper,  rags,  and  other  readily 
salable  materials. 

The  theory  of  this  method  of  disposal  is  that  all  putrescible  wastes 
are  to  be  subjected  to  high  temperatures  and  converted  into  a  sterile 
ash.  Its  use  is  therefore  based  on  its  alleged  sanitary  advantages 
over  other  methods.  The  fact  remains,  however,  that  this  method 
of  disposal,  like  other  methods,  is  only  sanitary  when  properly  man- 
aged. Because  a  given  city  has  an  incinerator  of  one  sort  or  another, 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  putrescible  wastes  from  that  city  are  being 
reduced  to  an  innocuous  ash  or  clinker. 

The  cost  of  installation  is  comparatively  high,  as  is  the  cost  of 
operation.  While  some  plants  are  selling  the  steam  generated,  no 
plant  is  returning  sufficient  revenue  to  offset  the  cost  of  operation. 

While  incineration  has  proved  a  failure  in  a  number  of  cases  and 
a  large  number  of  plants  have  been  abandoned,  it  should  be  noted  that 
this  method  is  capable  of  being  conducted  on  a  high  sanitary  plane. 

REDUCTION. 

Garbage  containing  no  free  moisture  has  a  water  content  of  about 
70  per  cent,  or,  in  other  words,  by  drying  a  given  quantity  of  gar- 
bage its  weight  can  be  reduced  about  three-quarters.  Any  garbage 
by-products  must  be  practically  free  from  moisture,  and  to  obtain 
any  appreciable  revenue  considerable  garbage  must  be  available. 
The  necessary  apparatus  is  costly  and  the  operating  charges  are  high. 
These  factors  in  a  majority  of  cases  limit  garbage-reduction  plants 
to  cities  of  considerable  size.  Approximately  100,000  population 
must  be  available  before  a  reduction  plant  is  commercially  feasible 
with  present-day  -methods. 

Disregarding  the  numerous  rendering  plants  throughout  the  coun- 
try, some  of  which  treat  garbage  in  addition  to  dead  animals  and 
meat  trimmings,  29  of  the  larger  cities  are  having  their  garbage 
disposed  of  by  the  reduction  process.  The  plants  used  for  this  pur- 
pose are  producing  about  72,000,000  pounds  of  grease  and  150,000 
tons  of  fertilizer  tankage  per  annum.  The  total  value  of  the  mate- 
rial recovered  at  present  prices  is  over  $11,000.000. 

The  grease  now  being  produced  is  particularly  valuable  for  its 
glycerin  content,  which  is  estimated  to  be  sufficient  to  produce 
10,000.000  pounds  of  nitroglycerin.  The  fatty  acids  contained  in  the 
grease  are  equivalent  to  the  fatty  acids  in  the  manufacture  of  two 
hundred  million  12-ounce  cakes  of  soap.  It  is  therefore  obvious  that 
the  reduction  process  occupies  a  considerable  field  in  our  national 
resources,  particularly  since,  were  this  grease  not  available,  an  equal 


GARBAGE    UliJLl/AliON.  7 

amount  of  edible  and  cooking  oils  would  be  required  for  the  purposes 
to  which  the  garbage  grease  is  applied. 

Garbage  grease  therefore  is  indirectly  a  food  supply,  and  any 
additional  grease  recovered  augments  our  available  resources.  In  this 
connection  it  is  important  to  note  that  25  cities  of  over  100,000  popu- 
lation are  either  burning  or  dumping  their  garbage;  the  grease  and 
fertilizer  ingredients  contained  are  not  being  utilized.  It  is  estimated 
that  this  garbage  would  produce  30,000,000  pounds  of  grease  and 
60,000  tons  of  fertilizer  tankage,  the  sum  of  me  values  of  these  two 
by-products  being  nearly  $5,000,000.  The  grease  being  destroyed  is 
sufficient  for  the  manufacture  of  over  4,000,000  pounds  of  nitro- 
glycerin  and  sixty-five  million  12-ounce  cakes  of  soap. 

As  an  example  of  the  value  of  the  fertilizer  tankage,  the  amount 
now  produced  per  annum  contains  approximately  9,000,000  pounds 
of  nitrogen,  22,000,000  pounds  of  phosphate  of  lime,  and  2,000,000 
pounds  of  potash — enough  to  replace  the  soil  depletion  of  about 
8,000,000  bushels  of  wheat.  The  fertilizer  from  25  cities  not  now 
utilizing  their  garbage  would  replace  the  nitrogen  removed  from  the 
soil  by  about  2,600,000  bushels  of  wheat. 

The  reduction  process  is  primarily  a  manufacturing  process  and 
has  undergone  radical  improvement  during  the  past  few  years. 
Reduction  plants  have  been  justly  famous  for  their  odors,  but  at 
the  present  time  a  number  of  plants  are  being  operated  with  efficient 
management,  improved  apparatus,  and  no  nuisance. 

Recent  developments  in  garbage  reduction  include  the  production 
of  alcohol  by  processes  similar  to  those  used  in  distillation.  As  much 
alcohol  has  been  recovered  from  a  ton  of  garbage  as  from  4  bushels 
of  corn.  This  is  an  additional  recovery,  as  the  process  does  not 
materially  decrease  the  amount  of  grease  recovered,  or  the  amount  of 
bone  phosphate  of  lime,  potash,  and  nitrogen  in  the  tankage.  If 
anything,  the  tankage  is  improved  as  a  more  concentrated  fertilizer  is 
produced. 

COMPARISON  OF  VALUE  BY  REDUCTION  AND  FEEDING. 

We  have  indicated  that  the  reduction  process  is  hardly  suitable 
for  cities  of  under  100,000  population.  A  proper  question  would  be, 
"  Is  pig  feeding  more  applicable  to  cities  now  reducing  than  the  re- 
duction process?" 

In  as  far  as  the  monetary  return  applies,  the  two  methods  are 
practically  identical.  The  reduction  process  possibly  has  the  advan- 
tage of  improvement  to  a  greater  extent  than  pig  feeding.  By  im- 
proving the  breed  of  the  hog,  gains  might  be  made  more  economi- 
cally, but  the  reduction  process  requires  only  simplified  machinery  or 
additional  recoveries  to  make  a  ton  of  garbage  more  valuable. 

It  also  seems  that  the  larger  the  city. the  less  adapted  its  garbage 
to  pig  feeding.  One  might  say  that  smaller  cities  were  better  man- 
aged, but  it  is  obvious  that  the  difficulties  of  controlling  materials 
placed  in  the  garbage  increase  more  rapidly  than  does  the  population. 
Although  a  pig  is  blessed  with  a  digestive  system  capable  of  assimi- 
lating almost  anything,  its  efficiency  can  not  be  compared  with  the 
mechanical  digesters  of  the  reduction  plants. 


8  GARBAGE    UTILIZATION. 

While  from  a  purely  conservation  standpoint  pork  production 
may  seem  more  important  than  the  production  of  grease  and  ferti- 
lizer tankage,  the  use  of  the  grease  recovered  releases  an  equivalent 
amount  of  edible  oils,  while  our  stock  of  agricultural  fertilizers  is  so 
depleted  at  the  present  time  that  fertilizer  tankage  is  a  national  re- 
source not  to  be  overlooked. 

DISPOSAL  BY  FEEDING. 

PRESENT  STATUS  OF  GARBAGE  FEEDING. 

The  test  of  the  practicability  of  the  feeding  method  of  disposal  is 
the  selling  possibilities  of  the  pork  produced.  There  is  no  benefit 
in  feeding  if  the  pork  is  unfit  for  food  or  if  a  popular  prejudice  will 
prohibit  it  from  selling  freely. 

There  undoubtedly  is  a  prejudice  in  the  public  mind  against  "  gar- 
bage " — not  particularly  against  garbage-fed  pork,  nor  reduction  or 
incineration  plants,  but  against  the  word  "garbage"  and  anything 
connected  with  garbage.  One  might  say  its  disposal  was  regarded 
as  an  illicit  business.  It  is  not  strange  therefore  that  there  is  so  little 
general  knowledge  of  the  possibilities  of  garbage  utilization  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  feeding  method. 

Of  the  G6  cities  estimated  to  have  in  excess  of  100,000  population 
in  1916  by  the  United  States  Census  Bureau,  20  or  over  30  per  cent, 
report  that  their  garbage  is  being  disposed  of  by  feeding  to  hogs. 
Of  the  544  cities  having  between  10.000  and  100,000  population  in 
1916,  from  which  reports  have  been  received,  200,  or  over  36  per  cent, 
report  their  garbage  likewise  being  fed. 

This  means  that  even  when  the  production  in  cities  of  under  10,000 
inhabitants  is  not  considered,  nor  the  suburban  and  farm  population 
which  disposes  of  almost  all  its  garbage  by  feeding,  the  waste  food 
products  from  over  8,000,000  people  are  being  fed  to  hogs.  This 
would  be  sufficient  to  produce  approximately  80,000,000  pounds  of 
pork  per  annum.  But  assuming  only  half  of  this  amount  actually 
slaughtered — and  data  available  indicate  that  more  than  50  per  cent 
efficiency  can  be  expected — it  would  mean  that  more  than  40,000,000 
pounds  of  garbage-fed  pork  is  being  sold  each  year.  At  the  present 
price  of  pork  this  would  have  a  value  of  $6,000,000. 

QUALITY  OF  PORK  PRODUCED. 

If  garbage-fed  pork  is  inferior  to  grain-fed,  the  price  paid  by  the 
packers,  who  are  naturally  adverse  to  paying  full  price  for  an  in- 
ferior article,  should  indicate  the  fact.  We  have  not  been  able  to 
find  any  market  where  garbage-fed  hogs  are  being  generally  sold  at 
a  lower  price  than  grain-fed  animals.  When  cases  of  "  softer  "  pork 
have  been  noted  it  has  generally  been  found  that  the  animals  were 
improperly  raised,  kept  in  small  pens  and  not  allowed  to  exercise. 
There  is  no  theoretical  reason  why  garbage  should  be  bad  for  hogs. 
Even  putrefying  materials  may  be  transformed  into  delicious  human 
food;  for  example,  lobsters,  crabs,  shrimp,  etc.,  feed  almost  exclu- 
sively on.  decaying  fish ;  and  the  common  barnyard  chicken  will  eat 
and  thrive  on  almost  all  kinds  of  so-called  filth. 


GARBAGE    UTILIZATION.  9 

Eecently  garbage-fed  hogs  were  raised  at  the  experimental  station 
of  a  Middle  Western  State  and  marketed  at  the  same  time  as  hogs 
fed  corn  and  other  grains.  The  carcasses  of  these  garbage-fed  hogs 
could  not  be  distinguished  by  the  officials  of  one  of  the  large  packing 
houses  from  corn-fed  hogs,  and  were  even  given  a  higher  grading 
than  some  of  the  hogs  fed  on  certain  grains. 

POSSIBILITY  OF  DISEASED  MEAT. 

The  chief  objection  to  garbage-fed  hogs  is  that  such  hogs  ara 
alleged  to  be  infected  with  trichinosis.  There  are  no  data  available 
to  support  such  claims;  isolated  cases  have  been  found,  as  with 
grain-fed  stock,  but  we  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  evidence 
to-day  that  shows  garbage- fed  hogs,  as  a  class,  to  be  more  susceptible 
to  either  trichinosis  or  tuberculosis  than  grain-fed.  The  health 
officer  of  a  large  New  England  city,  which  disposes  of  its  garbage 
by  feeding,  says: 

I  believe  garbage-fed  pork  is  as  wholesome  as  any  that  can  be  obtained. 
I  eat  it  myself  when  I  can  get  it,  and  I  wish  I  could  afford  more  of  it.  I 
do  not  see  any  grounds  for  the  belief  that  such  pork  is  unwholesome. 

Xo  inspection  for  trichinosis  is  made  by  the  Government  inspectors 
at  the  packing  houses.  Thoroughly  cooking  the  pork  destroys  all 
danger  from  this  parasite  and  likewise  all  danger  from  tubercular 
germs.  The  Government  urges  thorough  cooking  and  condemns  the 
practice  of  eating  raw  pork.  Some  garbage-fed  pork  from  a  south- 
ern pig  farm,  claimed  to  be  infected  this  year,  was  sent  to  Washing- 
ton for  examination  by  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  and  found 
to  be  absolutely  free  from  all  traces  of  trichinosis  infection. 

Recently,  at  a  meeting  in  Chicago,  the  statement  was  made  that 
garbage- fed  hogs  were  particularly  likely  to  be  infected  with  tuber- 
culosis. This  statement  was  promptly  challenged  by  an  official  of 
the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  a  specialist  in  the 
diseases  of  garbage-fed  hogs.  He  said  that  such  a  statement  was 
no  more  justified,  from  available  data,  than  a  statement  that  because 
90  per  cent  of  the  hogs  from  a  certain  county  of  a  Western  State 
showed  lesions  of  tuberculosis  011  autopsy,  it  followed  that  the  feed- 
ing of  grain  caused  tuberculosis.  There  is  a  well-known  reason  for 
the  large  percentage  of  corn-fed  hogs  found  infected,  and  there  is 
likewise  a  well-defined  reason  for  the  few  cases  where  garbage-fed 
hogs  have  been  found  with  a  large  percentage  of  tuberculosis. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  a  western  city  the  percentage  of 
garbage-fed  hogs  found  infected  as  compared  with  grain-fed  hogs 
found  infected  by  the  same  Government  inspectors,  ran  about  1  to 
20.  In  an  Eastern  State,  out  of  about  100,000  pounds  of  garbage-fed 
pork,  only  41  pounds  was  condemned  by  the  Federal  inspectors. 
Over  90  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  hogs  raised  in  Massachusetts 
are  said  to  be  garbage- fed,  but  the  percentage  condemned  is  not 
nearly  as  high  as  in  certain  other  States  with  less  stringent  inspec- 
tion laws. 

COMPARISON    WITH    GRAIN -FED    HOGS. 

In  what  way  does  the  garbage-fed  hog  differ  from  his  grain-fed 
brother?  What  steps  are  necessary  to  make  a  successful  hog  raiser 

50184^18 2 


10 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 


likewise  successful  with  garbage-fed  hogs?     What  is  the  secret  in 
this  method  of  feeding  ? 

In  very  general  terms,  the  following  comparisons  of  garbage-fed 
hogs  with  those  fed  grain  can  be  made. 

1.  Garbage-fed  hogs  do  not  make  gains  as  rapidly. 

2.  Garbage-fed  hogs  show  greater  shrinkage  in  long  shipments. 

3.  Garbage-fed  hogs  do  not  dress  quite  as  high. 

4.  With  proper  management  the  meat  produced  is  equal,  and  can 
not  be  distinguished  from  that  of  grain-f3d  hogs. 

5.  Garbage-fed  hogs  are  exposed  to  cholera  constantly,  and  inoc- 
ulation is  indispensable. 

6.  Cholera  in  garbage-fed  hogs  is  generally  associated  with  sec- 
ondary infection  but  can  be  controlled  by  immunization. 

7.  Garbage-fed  hogs  are  not  peculiarly  susceptible  to  trichinosis 
and  tuberculosis. 

The  secret  of  success  with  garbage-fed  hcgs  is,  as  with  grain-fed 
hogs,  largely  one  of  management.  The  man  behind  the  hcgs  is  the 
prime  consideration.  It  requires  hard  work,  no  little  knowledge 
of  hogs,  and  a  large  amount  of  common  sense  to  raise  garbage-fed 
hogs.  Cities  undertaking  municipal  hog-raising  must  remember  that 
the  pigs  are  to  be  fed  on  garbage;  not  on  politics.  The  men  who 
are  making  a  success  in  this  work  are  up  early  and  late,  are  progres- 
sive, know  their  hogs,  and  have  a  distinct  knowledge  of  what  they 
are  doing  and  how  they  are  doing  it. 

SIZE  OF  HERD  REQUIRED.. 

One  hundred  animals,  ranging  from  pigs  to  big  sows,  will  eat  a 
ton  of  garbage  per  day.  This  means  an  average  ration  of  20  pounds 
per  animal  per  day.  Since  the  average  per  capita  production  of 
garbage  per  year  is  about  200  pounds,  this  means  that  the  garbage 
from  every  1,000  population  will  support  from  20  to  30  pigs.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  garbage 
is  produced  in  the  summer  and  that  a  larger  herd  will  be  required 
during  that  sason.  The  feed  value  of  the  garbage  produced  during 
the  summer  months,  however,  is  not  as  high,  thus  to  a  certain  extent 
offsetting  the  increased  quantity.  The  average  monthly  percentage 
of  the  yearly  production  for  cities  in  the  United  States  runs  about 
as  follows : 


Per  cent 

January 7 

February 6} 

March 7 

April : 7i 

May 8 

June 8$ 

July 9} 


Per  cent 

August 11 

September 10i 

October 9 

November 8 

December 7$ 


Total  for  year 100 


The  figures  vary  somewhat  with  the  location  of  the  city,  character 
of  the  population,  etc.,  but  give  a  general  idea  of  the  variance  which 
may  be  expected. 

GAIN   IN   WEIGHT  PER  POUND  OF   GARBAGE  EATEN. 

A  number  of  tests  have  been  made  which  establish  that  a  gain  of 
about  a  pound  per  day  can  be  expected  with  growing  hogs.  This 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION.  11 

means  roughly  that  a  ton  of  garbage  is  equal  to  100  pounds  of  live 
weight  gained.  It  does  not  mean,  however,  that  tons  of  garbage  as 
produced  multiplied  by  100  equals  the  live  weight  to  be  put  on  the 
market.  A  certain  percentage  of  loss  in  stock  is  always  to  be  expected 
and  even  with  the  fullest  cooperation  with  householders,  city  officials, 
etc.,  a  certain  amount  of  inedible  material,  and  even  inedible  garbage, 
will  always  be  present. 

Some  feeders  are  stating  that  the  quality  of  the  garbage  now  pro- 
duced is  not  as  good  as  that  of  a  year  ago — that  more  garbage  must 
be  eaten  to  produce  a  pound  gain."  This  is  not  definitely  established 
but  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  with  high  prices,  etc.,  the  quality 
is  not  as  good.  We  recommend  that  to  cover  losses  and  a  possible 
decrease  in  the  quality  of  the  garbage  fed,  the  amount  of  market- 
able live  weight  be  assumed  at  1  pound  to  50  pounds  of  garbage. 
With  careful  management  the  ratio  could  be  lowered  considerably. 

HOUSEHOLD  TREATMENT. 

Householders  should  be  required  to  keep  garbage  free  of  cans, 
papers,  sawdust,  oyster  shells,  glass,  etc.  Garbage  mixed  with  any 
of  these  foreign  materials  should  not  be  collected,  and  an  ordinance 
to  this  effect  should  be  provided  and  enforced  without  fear  or  favor. 
Numerous  losses  can  be  traced  to  such  foreign  matter,  particularly 
such  finer  particles  as  readily  become  embedded  in  edible  materials. 
Two  objects  which  find  their  way  into  the  garbage  pail  in  consid- 
erable quantities  are  the  very  thin  glass  from  electric-light  bulbs  and 
phonograph  needles. 

Undoubtedly  a  great  deal  of  the  difficulty  with  mixed  material  is 
due  to  carelessness,  but  the  admixture  of  the  objects  mentioned  above 
could  hardly  be  due  to  carelessness.  They  are  not  broken  crockery, 
cutlery,  paper,  meat  skewers,  etc.,  which  would  naturally  be  associ- 
ated with  garbage.  A  large  part  of  the  trouble  is  due  to  the  house- 
holder's ignorance  that  the  garbage  is  being  fed  and  that  such  things 
are  injurious.  Surely  very  few  phonograph  needles  would  find  their 
way  into  the  garbage  pail  if  the  householders  could  imagine  the 
tortures  suffered  by  the  unfortunate  animals,  their  intestines  punc- 
tured and  torn  by  the  sharp  points. 

It  is  unquestionably  wise  to  keep  the  public  continually  advised 
that  the  garbage  is  being  fed.  Individual  cases  can  be  easily  handled 
by  a  courteous  notice  that  the  materials  found  with  the  garbage  are 
very  injurious  to  the  hogs.  Word  to  the  local  press  that  an  autopsy 
shows  one  or  more  hogs  have  died  through  eating  foreign  material 
will  generally  be  treated  as  "  news,"  and  the  public  will  be  reminded 
of  their  responsibilities.  The  various  civic  officials  must  give  their 
hearty  cooperation  and  their  notices  to  the  public  should  explain 
that  the  garbage  is  being  fed  to  hogs.  When  the  public  knows  that 
there  is  a  reason  for  the  various  ordinances,  that  they  are  not  simply 
"  red  tape,"  a  great  improvement  will  be  noticed. 

The  garbage  should  be  carefully  drained  by  the  householder  before 
being  placed  in  the  receptacle.  The  ordinance  should  prohibit  all 
dishwater,  and  garbage  containing  free  water  of  any  description 
should  be  noncollectible.  The  water  not  only  adds  to  the  per  ton 


12  GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 

cost,  of  collection  but  is  very  apt  to  contain  lye,  strong  soap,  etc., 
things  which  are  none  too  good  for  the  digestive  system  of  the  hogs. 
In  line  with  the  policy  of  keeping  out  moisture,  the  receptacles 
should  be  kept  covered.  This  should  be  done  for  the  further  reasons 
that  garbage  in  a  well-covered  receptacle  is  inaccessible  to  stray  cats 
or  dogs,  is  fly  proof,  and  confines  odors.  Obviously  such  receptacles 
should  be  made  of  metal  and  kept  water-tight,  although  from  the 
feeding  standpoint  a  pervious  receptacle  would  eliminate  all  free 
moisture. 

FREQUENCY  OF   COLLECTION. 

Aside  from  the  sanitary  aspect,  the  interval  of  collection  is  im- 
portant in  that  the  fresher  the  garbage  the  greater  its  feeding  value. 
In  northern  cities  collection  should  certainly  be  made  three  times  per 
week  during  the  summer  months.  Once  per  week  during  cold 
weather  might  be  sufficient  from  the  feeding  standpoint,  but  house- 
hold requirements  warrant  at  least  two  collections  per  week.  In 
southern  cities  daily  collections  should  be  made  during  hot  weather, 
while  three  per  week  may  be  sufficient  in  the  winter.  Garbage  from 
hotels  and  restaurants  should  be  collected  daily. 

If  the  disposal  of  garbage  by  feeding  lowers  the  cost  of  disposal 
in  any  city,  the  question  of  applying  such  savings  to  household  con- 
venience by  more  frequent  collections  is  worthy  of  serious  considera- 
tion. The  big  factor  at  the  present  time  is  that  the  valuable  in- 
gredients of  the  garbage  be  conserved  rather  than  destroyed.  Even 
if  the  cost  is  equal  to  that  of  nonutilization,  the  additional  food 
values  recovered  are  an  important  item  when  the  amount  thus  re- 
claimed is  calculated. 

BY  WHOM   SHOULD   COLLECTIONS   BE  MADE? 

Special  efforts  should  be  made  on  the  part  of  the  city  to  collect  by 
municipal  forces  even  though  disposal  by  contract  is  deemed  advis- 
able. The  municipality  can  generally  overcome  collection  difficulties 
better  than  a  contractor.  With  contract  collections,  details  must  be 
definitely  stipulated  and  can  not  readily  be  changed  as  conditions 
alter.  With  municipal  collections  changed  conditions  can  be  readily 
met. 

It  is  also  believed  that  more  competition  can  be  obtained  on  a 
contract  for  disposal  only  than  on  a  contract  for  both  collection  and 
disposal.  The  difficulties  experienced  with  disposal  are  not  so  de- 
tailed as  with  collection.  Collection  of  garbage  is  a  public  utility, 
whereas  disposal  is  a  private  affair  in  which  the  public  is  not  inter- 
est od  and.  up  to  the  present,  has  had  no  wish  to  be  interested. 

METHODS  OF  UTILIZING  GARBAGE  AS  HOG  FOOD. 

There  are  but  two  feeding  methods  worthy  of  consideration;  the 
first  by  the  municipality,  the  second  by  one  individual,  association, 
or  corporation.  In  no  event  should  contracts  be  made  with  a  number 
of  feeders.  This  has  b?en  tried  in  a  number  of  places  and  found  dis- 
advantageous to  both  the  citv  and  the  contractors.  In  the  first  place 
the  amount  of  garbage  produced  varies  from  season  to  season,  and 
even  from  day  to  day.  It  is  difficult  to  proportion  this  varying 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION.  13 

quantity  among  a  number  of  feeders,  when  each  feeder  must  provide 
sufficient  stock  to  consume  the  maximum  amount  which  he  might 
receive  on  any  given  day.  It  is  impossible  to  prevent  a  surplus  if 
a  certain  feeder  kills  off  his  stock  and  leaves  the  city  with  an  accumu- 
lation of  garbage  and  no  way  of  disposal.  With  a  number  of  indi- 
vidual feeders  no  heavy  bond  can  be  obtained  by  the  city.  A  con- 
tract could  safely  be  let  to  a  single  individual,  permitting  him  to 
sell  whatever  garbage  he  choses  to  sell.  The  city  could  then  be 
protected  by  adequate  bond. 

VALUE  OF  GARBAGE  FOR  FEED. 

In  considering  disposal  contracts  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that 
the  individual  is  preparing  to  take  certain  risks  and  that  these  risks 
warrant  him  a  return  on  his  money  commensurable  with  the  risk. 

There  is  at  present  a  mistaken  idea  throughout  the  country  as  to 
the  value  of  garbage.  In  a  large  number  of  cases  it  is  a  question 
whether  the  value  will  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost  of  collection  and 
transportation.  Where  collection  and  disposal  both  are  to  be  made 
by  the  contractor,  we  doubt  if  the  work  will  be  done  without  cost  to 
the  city  unless  the  quality  of  the  garbage  is  exceptional  and  there 
is  keen  competition  for  the  material. 

The  ratio  of  1  pound  of  marketable  pork  to  50  pounds  of  garbage 
has  already  been  established.  With  pork  on  the  hoof  at  15£  cents 
this  would  give  gross  feed  value  of  $6.20  to  a  ton  of  garbage.  From 
this  amount  must  be  deducted  the  cost  of  labor  and  materials  at  the 
farm,  any  haul  involved,  interest  on  investment,  depreciation  on 
buildings,  and  profit. 

DISPOSAL  STIPULATIONS. 

In  making  contracts  for  disposal  by  feeding,  a  comparatively  long- 
time contract  is  advisable.  It  is  obvious  that  with  one-year  contracts 
the  cost  to  the  city  must  be  excessive  as  compared  with  a  longer 
period,  since  the  contractor  must  cover  the  cost  of  his  equipment  in 
the  price  bid.  Upon  again  bidding  he  is  in  a  position  to  take  a  large 
profit,  his  plant  being  practically  paid  for  and  his  competitors  com- 
pelled to  add  at  least  a  considerable  portion  of  the  plant  cost  to  their 
price. 

An  additional  advantage  of  comparatively  long  contracts  or  mu- 
nicipal operation  is  that  sanitary  standards  can  be  insisted  on  which 
would  be  prohibitive  with  a  one-year  contract  because  of  their  cost. 
With  a  one-year  contract  almost  any  kind  of  shelter  will  have  to 
suffice.  The  feeding  grounds,  fences,  etc.,  will  all  be  of  the  cheapest 
type  obtainable.  With  a  contract  for  a  longer  period  the  city  can 
stipulate  and  the  contractor  would  be  willing  to  furnish  structures  of 
a  more  permanent  type.  Any  contract  to  be  awarded,  however, 
should  require  such  standards  that  no  nuisance  would  be  maintained 
at  the  plant.  Obviously  in  a  settled  community  the  opportunity  for 
a  nuisance  would  be  greater  than  in  strictly  suburban  territory  and 
stricter  standards  would  be  needed.  A  suburban  location  for  a  farm 
is  therefore  more  desirable  but  lengthens  the  haul  and  thus  increases 
costs.  If  the  garbage  has  to  be  transferred  from  the  collecting  ve- 
hicles to  rail  transportation,  however,  the  distance  of  the  farm  from 


14  GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 

the  municipality  is  not  so  important,  the  cost  to  transport  5  miles 
being  very  little  less  than  to  transport  20  to  25. 

With  the  present  popular  demand  for  this  method  of  disposal  there 
is  unfortunately  a  tendency  to  lose  sight  of  the  advances  made  in  the 
art.  Various  statements  and  newspaper  items  refer  to  the  success  of 
this  method  but  call  little  attention  to  the  dangers  met  with  in  the 
farms  of  25  years  ago.  Unless  cities  adopting  feeding  disposal  give 
careful  attention  to  sanitary  features,  a  throwback  to  the  old-time 
farms  will  be  inevitable.  It  costs  money  to  keep  down  garbage  odors. 

LOCATION  OF  FARM. 

The  distance  of  the  farm  from  the  municipality  naturally  depends 
on  local  conditions.  With  wagon  or  truck  haulage,  distance  is  an 
important  factor,  but  with  carload  lots  an  additional  10-mile  haul 
adds  very  little  to  the  freight  rate  and  a  more  ideal  location  may  be 
selected. 

The  pig  farm  should  be  located  on  soil  that  drains  readily,  prefer- 
ably sand  or  gravel.  For  the  same  reason  it  is  advisable  that  the 
land  be  rolling;  the  houses  should  then  be  located  for  warmth  in 
winter  and  coolness  in  summer.  Good  drainage  is  essential  at  all 
seasons. 

Garbage-fed  hogs  require  abundant  drinking  water.  If  any 
streams  or  brooks  are  included  in  the  property  they  should  be  care- 
fully traced  and  their  purity  established  or  else  fenced  off  so  that  the 
animals  will  drink  pure  water  otherwise  supplied. 

The  size  of  the  farm  necessary  varies  with  the  system  of  handling. 
With  feeding  out  of  dcors  in  all  but  extreme  weather,  assume  50  pigs 
per  acre.  Under  cover  the  number  can  be  increased  to  from  400  to 
600  an  acre. 

EQUIPMENT. 

The  type  of  shelter  to  be  provided  depends  on  the  length  of  the 
contract  and  the  climate  of  the  locality  in  which  the  farm  is  to  be 
located.  With  a  short-time  contract,  the  idea  should  be  to  give  the 
pig  a  dry  place  in  which  to  sleep  and  keep  warm.  The  types  of  shel- 
ters developed  by  various  experimental  stations  are  well  adapted  to 
this  end ;  particularly  a  type  placed  on  skids  for  moving  about,  fac- 
ing north  in  summer  and  south  in  the  winter  and  with  sides  so  ar- 
ranged as  to  be  opened  for  ventilation  and  shade.  Any  shelters 
should  be  so  low  as  to  prohibit  any  great  degree  of  piling  up,  with 
its  subsequent  suffocation  or  heated  condition  conducive  to  pneu- 
monia. With  houses  of  this  type  the  feeding  arrangements  will 
naturally  be  somewhat  primitive  and  should  at  least  consist  of  the 
feeding  platforms  hereinafter  discussed. 

With  Ions-time  contracts  more  pretentious  equipment  can  be  in- 
stalled, permanent  rather  than  temporary  houses  may  be  erected, 
and  concrete  rather  than  board  platforms  provided.  In  such  event, 
the  breeding  and  raising  of  the  stock  would  probably  be  undertaken 
and  at  least  one  of  the  houses  provided  with  heat  and  artificial  light. 
Under  no  condition,  however,  should  the  animals  be  kept  in  small 
pens.  Considerable  range  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  successful 
operation  of  a  garbage-fed  piggery.  Fattening  stock  can  be  success- 
fully kept  in  close  confines  for  a  limited  time. 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION.  15 

The  other  equipment  developed  for  use  with  grain-fed  hogs  is  like- 
wise used  for  those  fed  garbage.  No  troughs  should  be  used,  how- 
over,  and  provision  for  a  feeding  floor  must  be  made.  These  feeding 
floors  and  the  range  required  constitute  the  main  difference  in  the 
equipment  for  the  two  types  of  animals. 

METHODS   OF   FEEDING. 

The  two  general  methods  of  feeding  depend  primarily  on  how  the 
material  is  delivered  to  the  farm.  When  in  wagonloads  or  by  motor 
truck  it  will  probably  be  advantageous  to  have  what  are  known  as 
feeding  lots.  These  lots  are  about  an  acre  in  size  and  contain  one  or 
more  feeding  platforms  made  of  lumber  and  of  sufficient  size  to  hold 
n  load  of  garbage  as  delivered.  The  platforms  are  on  skids  and  have 
a  low  rail,  a  2  by  4,  nailed  on  edge,  to  help  prevent  the  garbage  being 
shoved  off  the  platform. 

The  pigs  are  permitted  to  enter  the  feeding  lot  only  after  the  gar- 
bage has  been  dumped  and  the  vehicle  has  left  the  lot.  This  prevents 
injury  during  unloading  and  avoids  garbage  being  thrown  on  the 
pigs. 

After  feeding,  the  pigs  are  shut  out  of  the  lots,  the  bones  gathered, 
the  platforms  cleaned  and  skidded  to  a  new  location.  The  ground 
beneath  and  around  the  old  site  is  plowed  under  and  danger  of  odors 
from  all  spilled  garbage  or  moisture  eliminated.  The  feed  lots  are 
changed  from  time  to  time  and  various  forage  crops  grown  on  the 
lots  thus  fertilized  by  uneaten  garbage  and  manure.  This  apprecia- 
tion of  the  soil  is  important  and  land  that  will  benefit  by  such  fertili- 
zation can  well  be  purchased  rather  than  land  totally  unsuited  for 
tillage  and  the  raising  of  crops. 

Where  delivery  is  made  in  carload  lots,  the  labor  expense  or  rehan- 
dling  may  eat  up  a  large  part  of  the  feed  value.  Under  such  condi- 
tions the  hogs  are  brought  to  the  garbage  and  the  feeding  platforms 
are  adjacent  to  the  railroad  tracks.  Cement  platforms  soon  become 
eaten  by  the  acid  in  garbage,  but  some  impervious  material  must  be 
used  where  the  platforms  can  not  be  moved  about  and  the  ground 
underneath  turned  over.  The  use  of  narrow  troughs  is  objectionable. 
Not  only  do  they  become  so  eaten  by  the  acid  as  to  be  hard  to  clean, 
but  it  is  much  better  to  spread  the  material  out  on  a  flat  surface  where 
the  hog  will  have  an  opportunity  to  sort  and  reject  any  injurious 
matter. 

The  best  garbage  should  be  fed  to  fattening  stock  or  to  sows  with 
young  pigs.  When  open-lot  feeding  is  practiced  this  is  a  simple 
procedure,  since  the  material  collected  in  the  better  portions  of  the 
city  can  be  reserved  for  these  particular  purposes.  With  carload 
lots  the  same  effect  is  produced  by  first  permitting  only  the  fattening 
stock  to  the  platforms.  After  these  have  become  satisfied  a  second 
lot,  say,  young  shoats,  are  let  in  In  the  same  way  a  third  or  even  a 
fourth  lot  are  given  an  opportunity.  Not  only  is  the  better  garbage 
eaten  by  the  most  important  portion  of  the  stock,  but  the  garbage  is 
eaten  more  closely.  The  last  lot,  generally  brood  sows,  are  kept  hun- 
gry and  can  be  relied  upon  to  clean  up  all  edible  material  remaining. 

The  feeding  of  frozen  garbage  during  the  winter  months  is  not 
considered  advisable.  It  may  be  unavoidable,  but  it  must  be  remem- 


16  GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 

bered  that  before  this  food  can  be  digested  its  temperature  must  be 
raised  to  that  of  the  stomach.  This  requires  a  certain  amount  of 
energy,  more  cheaply  supplied  by  mechanical  means  than  by  the  body 
heat  of  the  animal.  Considerable  frozen  garbage  is  being  fed,  but 
not  as  good  gains  in  weight  are  obtained.  Where  the  material  is 
thawed  before  feeding  the  gains  are  said  to  equal  those  of  other 
seasons. 

All  authorities  agree  that  abundant  fresh  water  must  be  available 
at  all  times.  If  possible,  some  sort  of  heater  should  be  provided  to 
prevent  freezing  during  severe  weather. 

STERILIZED   V.   RAW    GARBAGE. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  agitation  throughout  the  country 
on  the  desirability  of  sterilizing  garbage  before  feeding.  In  certain 
localities  where  feeding  was  frowned  upon  up  to  a  short  time  ago,  for 
alleged  sanitary  reasons,  permission  is  now  granted  on  condition  that 
the  garbage  be  first  sterilized.  There  is  no  great  objection  to  feeding 
sterilized  garbage  except  that  people  actually  having  used  it  state 
that  the  animals  do  not  do  so  well — that  the  losses  are  heavier  than 
when  feeding  the  raw  material. 

At  practically  all  of  the  large  farms  sterilizing  apparatus  has  been 
installed  at  considerable  expense,  but  such  apparatus  is  not  being  used 
at  the  present  time.  The  difficulty  is  said  to  be  that  sterilization 
eliminates  the  opportunity  for  selection,  that  any  objectionable  mat- 
ter is  incorporated  into  the  edible  garbage,  and  can  not  be  refused  by 
the  animals. 

With  so  heterogeneous  a  material  as  garbage,  no  definite  rule  can 
be  stated.  Experiments  should  be  conducted  in  every  case  to  estab- 
lish the  better  method.  As  regards  garbage  from  hotels,  restaurants, 
and  Army  camps,  sterilization  does  not  seem  to  be  objectionable. 
This,  however,  is  a  special  type  of  garbage,  and  the  grease  recovered 
is  appreciable.  From  a  financial  standpoint  the  cost  with  municipal 
garbage  is  about  equal  to  the  revenue  obtained  from  the  sale  of  grease 
recovered. 

USE  OF  SUPPLEMENTARY  FEEDS. 

Most  garbage  is  more  or  less  a  balanced  ration  and  no  supplement- 
ary feeds  are  required.  We  find,  however,  in  a  number  of  places  that 
animals  are  finished  off  with  corn  ;  in  others  wheat,  middlings,  or  sim- 
ilar feed  is  given  to  brood  sows,  or  corn  silage  is  fed  on  Sundays.  As 
a  rule,  however,  no  feed  other  than  garbage  is  provided.  Other  feeds, 
and  particularly  pasturage,  may  cause  gains  to  be  made  in  quicker 
time.  With  hotel  and  other  special  garbage  a  certain  amount  of 
roughage  may  be  desirable  and  even  necessary.  The  opinions  of  dif- 
ferent raisers  vary  greatly,  with  the  personal  qualifications  of  the 
man  feeding  providing  the  most  important  factor.  No  differences  in 
results  are  claimed  by  those  supplementing  garbage  as  compared  with 
those  feeding  garbage  alone. 

AMOUNT  TO  FEED. 

In  using  grain  feeds  it  has  been  conclusively  shown  that  greater 
gains  can  be  made  per  pound  when  the  feed  is  available  to  the  ani- 


GABBAGE   UTILIZATION.  17 

mals  at  all  times.  The  same  result  not  unnaturally  seems  to  hold  with 
garbage  feeding.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  percentage  of 
water  in  garbage  is  much  higher  than  in  grain  feed.  The  animal 
must,  therefore,  fill  up  oftener  to  obtain  the  same  amount  of  sus- 
taining matter.  This  means  that  the  garbage  must  be  available  to 
the  animals  for  a  considerable  portion  of  the  day. 

COST  OF  FEEDING. 

The  cost  of  operation  at  a  farm  depends  almost  entirely  on  condi- 
tions at  the  piggery  in  question;  any  comparisons  would  be  mis- 
leading unless  a  careful  analysis  of  all  factors  leading  up  to  and 
depending  on  such  costs  were  considered. 

In  a  general  way  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  cost  of  disposal  after 
the  farm  is  reached,  including  overhead  charges  at  the  farm,  would 
not  exceed  $3  per  ton.  Less  costs  are  reported  and  the  above  figure 
permits  of  reduction  with  careful  management.  A  supplementary 
source  of  revenue  at  a  farm  is  the  bones  recovered.  These  are  col- 
lected preparatory  to  cleaning  up  the  platforms  each  day.  The 
amount  recovered  runs  from  75  to  100  pounds  per  ton  of  garbage. 

NUMBER  OF  ANIMALS  PER  PEN. 

The  losses  due  to  "  piling  up  ''  are  so  heavy  that  each  hog  raiser  has 
very  positive  ideas  as  to  the  number  of  animals  per  pen.  Some  say 
that  as  low  as  10  is  the  number  to  be  allowed  in  a  shelter. 

Individual  pens  should  be  provided  for  each  brood  sow,  or  at  the 
most  two  sows  should  share  the  same  pen.  Upon  being  weaned  the 
young  pigs  should  be  kept  8  or  10  to  a  pen  until  about  8  or  10  weeks 
old.  Efforts  should  be  made  to  keep  in  each  pen  pigs  of  approxi- 
mately the  same  size.  When  over  60  to  75  pounds  in  weight  they  can 
be  turned  out  into  comparatively  large  lots.  The  larger  the  animals 
the  more  can  be  put  together  in  a  single  inclosure  without  danger. 
Our  records  indicate  that  as  high  as  five  to  six  hundred  animals  have 
been  kept  in  a  single  inclosure  without  sufficient  piling  up  to  cause 
harm. 

BREEDS  TO  BE  USED. 

Practically  every  breed  of  hog  is  being  successfully  fed  on  garbage. 
The  tendency  is  to  cross  the  short-bodied  hog  with  the  bacon  type. 
In  some  instances  the  boars  are  of  the  short-bodied  type  while  in 
other  cases  short-bodied  sows  are  used. 

With  short-term  contracts,  the  tendency  is  to  buy  stock  at  from 
75  to  100  pounds  in  weight  and  the  effort  is  to  secure  a  thrifty  hog 
that  will  put  on  weight  rapidly.  Practically  every  grade  of  hog  is 
being  used  for  this  purpose. 

The  number  of  pigs  raised  to  maturity  with  garbage-fed  stock  is 
about  the  same  as  with  grain-fed ;  namely,  from  5  to  7. 

BUTTING  FEEDERS  V.  RAISING. 

There  is  much  controversy  between  garbage  feeders  as  to  the  rela- 
tive merits  of  hogs  raised  on  garbage  from  birth  and  those  purchased 
on  the  market  when  at  around  100  pounds  in  weight.  Some  claim 


18  GARBAGE    UTILIZATION. 

that  the  garbage-fed  hog  has  not  the  strength  of  the  other  hog; 
others  will  only  handle  feeders  when  their  regular  stock  proves  in- 
adequate to  consume  the  amount  of  garbage  being  produced. 

Unquestionably  a  hog  raised  from  infancy  on  garbage  should 
be  the  more  successful.-  The  feed  is  much  more  bulky  than  with 
grain  and  requires  a  greater  stomach  capacity  if  the  same  amount 
of  nourishment  is  to  be  assimilated.  The  hog  raised  on  garbage 
is  started  as  a  garbage-feeding  pig,  his  stomach  is  capable  of  being 
distended  far  beyond  that  of  a  grain-fed  hog  of  equal  age. 

The  men  who  purchase  the  greater  part  of  their  stock  point 
out  that  they  take  off  the  market  immature  animals  at  the  time 
they  are  susceptible  to  their  greatest  gains,  and  that  there  is  con- 
siderable difference  in  the  prices  per  pound  for  these  light  hogs 
and  what  they  obtain  later,  after  feeding  to  regulation  weights. 
To  successfully  buy  such  pigs  means  that  the  buyer  must  be  located 
near  a  point  where  considerable  numbers  of  such  hogs  are  put  on 
the  market,  as  the  general  practice  throughout  the  country  is  not 
to  market  hogs  at  such  light  weights. 

Local  conditions  will  undoubtedly  be  the  greatest  factor  in  de- 
ciding this  question.  If  the  farm  is  operating  on  a  one-year  basis, 
the  expenditure  for  equipment  necessary  for  raising  is  not  justified. 
Pigs  can  be  purchased  more  cheaply.  If  several  years  of  operation 
are  certain,  raising  the  animals  may  prove  the  cheaper.  Satisfac- 
tory results  are  being  obtained  under  both  systems.  The  manage- 
ment is  the  essential  factor. 

CHOLERA  OF  GARBAGE-FED   HOGS. 

Practically  every  garbage  feeder  believes  that  the  material  he 
is  feeding  contains  considerable  hog-cholera  virus,  and  that  instead 
of  being  exposed  to  the  disease  once  or  twice  during  their  lifetime 
his  animals  are  exposed  daily.  Immunization  is  accordingly  of  far 
greater  importance  than  with  grain-fed  stock. 

Constant  exposure  to  cholera  virus  will  undoubtedly  build  up  a 
considerable  resistance  to  the  disease.  Where  garbage  with  its 
virus  content  has  been  fed  for  a  number  of  generations,  a  higher 
resistance  is  to  be  expected  than  in  grain-fed  herds.  This  higher 
resistance  causes  the  disease  to  be  less  acute,  but  the  garbage  feeder 
must  recognize  that  his  hogs  are  exposed  to  considerable  hog  cholera 
and  that  immunization  is  absolutely  required. 

Certain  successful  garbage  feeders  are  using  the  single  or  serum 
treatment  alone  and  aim  to  repeat  the  treatment  about  every  six 
or  eight  weeks.  This  is  expensive  from  the  standpoint  of  both 
labor  and  cost  of  serum  used,  but  is  effective.  It  would  seem,  how- 
ever, that  equally  good  or  better  results  could  be  obtained  by  using 
the  simultaneous,  or  virus  and  serum,  treatment.  Experience  indi- 
cates that  the  danger  of  this  treatment  is  largely  due  to  incompetent 
methods  of  inoculation  and  serum  of  low  potency.  As  much  as  80 
cc.  of  virus  have  been  given  on  one  side  of  pig  and  100  cc.  of  serum 
on  the  other  side  without  injury,  but  2  cc.  of  virulent  virus  is  suffi- 
cient. It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  this  treatment  must 
be  properly  applied  by  a  competent  veterinarian  or  other  person  par- 
ticularly qualified.  While  it  is  a  sure  preventative  when  properly 
handled,  incompetence  with  this  treatment  is  one  of  the  surest  ways 
of  spreading  the  disease. 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION.  19 

Immunity  in  breeding  stock  is  transmitted  to  the  offspring  as  a 
passive  or  temporary  immunity,  which  generally  disappears  soon 
after  weaning.  It  has  been  definitely  established  that  a  pig  with 
passive  immunity  can  not  be  actively  or  permanently  immunized.  It 
is  therefore  recommended  that  a  first  treatment  be  given  at  about  6 
weeks  of  age  and  the  animals  be  re-treated,  with  both  virus  and  serum, 
when  at  approximately  50  pounds  weight.  By  that  time  any  passive 
immunity  will  have  had  an  opportunity  to  wear  off  and  the  hog  can 
be  made  permanently  immune. 

We  find  that  even  where  selected  garbage  is  fed,  although  efforts  to 
sterilize  by  cooking  have  been  made,  a  great  deal  of  trouble  is  ex- 
perienced when  immunization  is  not  practiced. 

Because  of  the  lasting  immunity  conferred,  the  simultaneous  treat- 
ment for  cholera  control  is  always  preferable  to  the  "serum  only" 
treatment.  The  cost  is  practically  the  same. 

The  higher  resistance  built  up  in  hogs  bred  under  garbage  feeding 
conditions  makes  it  more  difficult  to  permanently  immunize  and  the 
virus  used  must  be  the  most  virulent  that  can  be  procured.  The  doses 
should  always  be  ample. 

TUBERCULOSIS   AND  OTHER  DISEASES. 

We  have  already  mentioned  that  90  per  cent  of  the  hogs  in  Massa- 
chusetts are  estimated  to  be  fed  on  garbage,  and  statistics  show  that 
of  over  10,000  hogs  slaughtered  last  year  under  inspection  in  that 
State,  only  169  were  found  infected  with  tuberculosis.  The  statement 
has  recently  been  made  that  8  per  cent  of  the  animals  coming  from 
a  well-known  pig  farm  are  infected  with  this  disease.  It  is  reported 
that  the  animals  referred  to  were  not  garbage  bred,  but  were  pur- 
chased by  this  farm  and  may  have  been  infected  at  the  time  of 
purchase.  Some  were  found  to  be  tubercular  and  have  died  of 
tuberculosis.  Prior  to  purchasing  these  hogs,  this  farm  sold  over 
2,500  hogs  and  had  but  11  condemned. 

With  pneumonia,  the  main  effort,  as  with  grain-fed  hogs,  is  to 
prevent  the  animals  from  becoming  overheated  and  then  cooling  off 
too  rapidly.  A  large  number  of  cases  can  be  expected  if  the  sleeping 
quarters  are  permitted  to  become  wet  and  foul.  Good  ventilation 
is  also  important  for  the  same  reason. 

In  connection  with  the  feeding  of  frozen  garbage,  it  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  if  this  practice  is  continued  over  a  considerable 
period,  the  vitality  of  the  animals  is  likely  to  be  lowered  materially ; 
a  condition  favorable  to  cholera,  pneumonia,  or  any  of  the  other 
diseases  to  which  hogs  are  susceptible.  For  example,  although  hog 
cholera  generally  diminishes  with  cold  weather,  the  season  of  maxi- 
mum cholera  in  New  England,  where  frozen  garbage  is  almost  ex- 
clusively fed,  occurs  during  the  extreme  winter  months. 

Aside  from  cholera,  and  it  is  believed  that  immunization  will  also 
control  the  swine  plague  frequently  associated  with  it,  diseases  can 
be  expected  in  about  the  same  degree  as  with  grain- fed  stock.  The 
treatments  are  identical  and  the  same  care  is  required. 

SANITARY  STANDARDS. 

With  a  highly  putrescible  material  rather  than  a  practically  sterile 
grain,  sanitary  measures  are  relatively  more  important.  Manure  and 


20  (JARBAGE    UTILIZATION. 

uneaten  garbage  should  be  cleaned  up  every  day  and  either  com- 
posted with  dry  earth  or  spread  on  the  ground  and  immediately 
plowed  under. 

The  paint  pot  and  whitewash  brush  can  not  be  too  much  in  evi- 
dence for  the  safety  of  the  herd.  They  are  even  more  needed  than 
with  grain-fed  stock. 

Rats  and  crows  are  unnecessary  at  a  pig  farm  and  should  be  kept 
under  control.  Rat  proofing  should  be  carefully  considered  when 
new  construction  is  to  be  undertaken.  The  foot-and-mouth  disease 
several  years  back  in  a  fine  herd  is  believed  to  have  been  Brought 
over  by  crows  from  a  near-by  herd  of  cattle. 


Any  estimate  of  the  cost  and  returns  from  garbage  disposal  is  so 
dependent  on  the  conditions  in  the  community  as  to  be  practically 
valueless  to  another  municipality. 

A  general  statement  of  disposal  by  feeding  as  practiced  in  Worces- 
ter, Mass.,  follows.  This  city  is  selected  because  of  the  successful 
operation  of  its  municipal  piggery  and  more  particularly  since  it  can 
be  used  to  illustrate  the  values  recoverable  in  successive  years  of 
operation. 

DATA  ON   WORCESTER,  MASS. 

Population,  185,000. 
Area,  38.4  square  miles. 
Topography,  hilly. 

Frequency  of  collection,  twice  per  week. 
Distance  of  farm  from  the  city,  3£  miles. 
Distance  of  farm  from  the  center  of  production,  6£  miles. 
Cost  of  collection,  $7.25  per  ton  (includes  haul  to  farm). 
Area  actually  used  for  pig  farm,  40  acres. 

Amount  fed,  1917,  6,514  tons  (only  about  60  per  cent  of  garbage 
produced  is  fed  at  farm.    Remainder  fed  by  private  collectors). 
Minimum  head  in  herd,  2,000. 

Approximate  capital  costs,  disposal  equipment  only. 

40  acres,  at  $100 $4,  000.  00 

Buildings,  platforms,  fences,  etc 3C  000.00 

Other  equipment 1,  000.  00 

40, 000.  00 
Operating  expenses  for  1917. 

6  caretakers,  at  $840 $5,040.00 

Additional  labor 900.  00 

Grain  and  bedding 1,  896.  65 

Serum  and  virus 2,  581.  26 

Repairs  to  buildings 1,  000.  00 

Miscellaneous,  supervision,  light,  heat,  interest,  teaming,  etc 3,  500.  00 

14,  917.  91 
Revenue  for  1917. 

Swine  sold 44.  487.  33 

Insurance  on  435  swine  lost  by  fire 4.  350.  00 

Increase  in  inventory,  1917  over  3916 2,900.00 

51,  737. 33 


GARBAGE   UTILIZATION. 
Summary. 


21 


Total. 

Per  ton 
fed. 

Revenue  

$51,737.33 

S7.94 

Expense          ..         .                   .           

14,917.91 

2.29 

Profit  

36,819.42 

5.65 

In  1915  the  entire  herd  either  died  of  the  foot-and-mouth  disease, 
were  killed  because  infected  with  this  disease,  or  were  sold;  the  en- 
tire herd  was  wiped  out,  and  Worcester  started  in  to  build  up  a  new 
herd,  under  conditions  almost  similar  to  those  to  be  faced  by  anyone 
first  going  into  the  proposition. 

Revenue,  September,  1915,  to  Dec.  1,  1917. 

Swine  sold,  1916 $13,  212.  84 

Swine  sold,  1917 44,  487.  33 

Insurance  on  stock  lost  by  fire 4,  350. 00 

Stock  on  hand  Dec.  1,  1917  (2,110  head) 42,000.00 


Less  stock  purchased  September.  1915,  to  December,  1917. 


104, 050. 17 
10,  727.  61 

93, 322.  56 

The  estimated  operating  expense  during  this  period,  based  on  the 
above  statement  of  expense  for  1917,  is  $33,750,  making  a  net  profit 
of  over  $59,000  for  the  two  years  and  three  months  of  operation. 

None  of  the  above  figures  include  depreciation  or  interest  on  money 
invested  in  live  stock.  Depreciation  on  buildings  is  covered  by  the 
repairs  made,  while  the  farm  suffers  no  depreciation. 

No  credit  has  been  allowed  for  manure  produced,  although  its 
value  is  so  high  that  no  other  fertilizers  are  purchased  for  use  on  the 
entire  farm  of  596  acres. 

o 


nni  ?97  574    4 


